I would like to respond to the comments of Nir Dagan and Jason White (see
their comments below), who have indicated that considerations of language
readability and privacy should be outside the scope of the page authoring
guidelines document.
1. Declaring the Scope of the Document
If the guidelines will not address issues such as language readability or
privacy, then perhaps the document should declare so. Following is an
example of what could be included in the guidelines:
"There are other considerations not addressed in this document which may
significantly influence the usability and accessibility of the Web pages.
For example, the language may be inaccessible because of difficult or
unfamiliar vocabulary and syntax, poor organization, etc. This issue of
language readability is particularly important for individuals who are deaf,
dyslexic, or nonnative speakers of the language. Another example is the
failure to inform users about how personal information will be used. A user
with a disability may be unwilling to access Web-based scholarship or
employment services because of concern about whether information about his
disability will be shared with schools or potential employers. And of
course, certain content may be offensive to some audiences for a variety of
reasons. Such considerations may be just as influential upon usability or
accessibility of a Web page as those addressed by the guidelines, but are
beyond the scope of this document."
2. Uncharted Territory
Regarding Jason White's comment ("The guidelines should not attempt to
prescribe appropriate writing practices but should be strictly limited to
those aspects of structure and markup which affect the compatibility of the
document with different input/output scenarios."), the guidelines have
already "strayed" into the area of writing practices.
Consider, for example, guideline B.4.2. ("Avoid phrases that are not
meaningful on their own such as "click here.""). This guideline provides
guidance in writing, i.e., to ensure phrases that will properly convey
meaning. This is further backed up by the corresponding Technique (B.4.2
[Priority 2]: Therefore, it is important that link text make[s] sense when
read without surrounding text. For example, authors should not use "click
here" as link text several times on the same pageÈ").
There are also other places in the guidelines that call for "clarity" of
expression, which, again, puts the guidelines into the realm of language
and writing. Technique A.5.1 requires that that the material be
"perceivable" but also "understandable" through "text" and "semantic clues"
("Don't use color to convey information unless the information is also
clear from the markup and/or text." "[Priority 1]: Authors must ensure that
text and graphics are perceivable and understandable when viewed without
color. To do so, provide other semantic clues in content or markupÈ".) Also,
guideline 1.5 calls for "Use a clear, consistent navigation structure".
Thus, it seems to me that the guidelines have already gone beyond ensuring
that users can perceive content; they go into the realm of ensuring that
what is perceived can also to understood. This pushes the guidelines beyond
issues of markup and structure and into the realms of language and writing.
3. Reasons for Reticence
I can understand the reticence to get into the area of language
readability. For example, to suggest that page authors need to pay
attention language readability may appear to threaten one of the document's
founding (and comforting) principles, i.e., that "Accessibility does not
mean minimal page design, it means thoughtful page design." (This statement
appears to align with principles of "universal design".) Yet at least in
the field of deaf education, certain texts may be referred to as being
somewhat or completely "inaccessible" because of their language readability
characteristics. And the process of rendering these texts more "accessible"
appears to involve simplification or minimization of some language
features. For the guidelines to require ensuring readable language may
place too great a burden upon authors. Yet to allow authors of public Web
sites to say, in effect, "We are targeting only audiences with high reading
levels," seems to fly in the face of principles of universal design.
4. Conclusion
I recommend that the guidelines document either (1) include guidelines that
address issues such as language readability or (2) make explicit that such
things are beyond the scope of the guidelines. I think that to do otherwise
would mislead some people to think that if they are following the
guidelines then the page will necessarily be accessible and usable by
people with disabilities.
5. Comments by Jason White and Nir Dagan
From Jason White:
> I altogether agree with Nir's sentiment: it is possible to write highly
> accessible content, meaning that it will be displayed optimally by a
range
> of different software systems and output devices, which is nevertheless
> poorly written, vague, incoherent, etc. The guidelines should not attempt
> to prescribe appropriate writing practices but should be strictly limited
> to those aspects of structure and markup which affect the compatibility
of
> the document with different input/output scenarios.
>
> Moreover, judgments of stylistic appropriateness are highly dependent
upon
> the subject matter of the text and its intended audience, and the
> guidelines should not stray into such considerations.
From Nir Dagan
> I do not think that the WAI guidelines should become a general guide
> to good authoring/writing/web-publishing.
>
> I can't see any relation to the suggestions below and accessibility.
> Next tell people to spell check and grammar check their documents, and
not use
> use rude words.
=============================
Eric G. Hansen
Development Scientist
Educational Testing Service
ETS 12-R
Rosedale Road
Princeton, NJ 08541
(W) 609-734-5615
(Fax) 609-734-1090
Internet: ehansen@ets.org